Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide critical behavior data like 'readOnlyHint' and 'idempotentHint.' The description adds valuable constraints by specifying the task type ('recurring Replo task'), providing context that helps narrow the scope of the tool's application beyond structural hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single, extremely concise sentence that front-loads the function and purpose without unnecessary filler, achieving maximum information density.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Even without an output schema, the description is complete enough for the AI to understand the scope of the data retrieved (schedule and timing). It helps the agent determine if this tool matches the user intent perfectly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, meaning the input parameters are already fully detailed in the structured schema. The description merely reinforces that the task ID must belong to a 'recurring' task, which adds very little semantic value over the structured data.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly defines the action ('Inspect') and the resource ('recurring Replo task'). It also specifies exactly what aspect of the resource is being queried ('schedule and current timing'), making it highly specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies usage by stating it is for inspecting 'specific recurring Replo tasks,' naturally distinguishing it from broader list-tasks or deletion tasks in the sibling set. While it doesn't explicitly state 'don't use list_tasks', the context makes the differentiation clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.